the environmentalists will tell you it s never been about the pipeline. it s about the tar sand. we absolutely need to move energy in this country. we need to move it in pipes and we need to move it in transmission lines and, unfortunately, we don t have an energy policy that move our energy where it needs to go and that needs to be fixed. and the other piece of this, in the middle of a recession we would put thousands of people back to work and it was just wrong-headed, in my opinion. is there such a thing as clean coal? you betcha. i m on the board of directors called dakota gas. we take coal and pulverize it and make natural coal. we compress it, make the co2 and send it to canada for enhanced oil recovery.
digit oil prices. i spent a lot of time up in the tar sand, and i know jeff has. the reality is a few months ago in copenhagen, tar sand was the euro pariah. the world s saying, this is dangerous, it s polluting. who nknows what the ecological effects r but it looks almost more predictable than bp. they are now advertising themselves as an ecological greener alternative. it s ironic it takes the worst environmental disaster in american history to make the tar sand flow green, but i guess that s how low the bar has fallen these days. let s be clear about why the tar sand is so controversial. isn t it essentially baking you re baking the earth, right, to get this stuff out of it? yeah, you re either injecting hot liquid there to melt the tar
takeover of bp because stock prices are so low, is that going to prompt the other oil companies to quickly develop technology to make sure something like this doesn t happen again? it will do that, but what it might also do is have the same impact on deepwater drilling as three-mile island had on nuclear power construction. it wasn t the regulator, it was the market. i mean, as bp is ultimately forced into chapter 11 bankruptcy, what s the takeaway for exxon or chevron or shell to develop fields that are three, four times as deep. your first guest said it s a puddle. it s more than a puddle. deepwater oil has been the source of about 50% of world supply growth over the last ten years. it figures decisively in everyone s optimistic outlook of future oil production. if deepwater oil is shut off, then, you know, the next place we re looking is tar sand and that s not a world of double
was processed in china is because oil is abundant and it s there and we re still using it and are addicted to it. that is the bottom line. it all comes down to that, right? the global economy runs on oil. if oil gets back to triple-digit oil prices, we re going to see massive free engineering of the global economy. tar sands isn t just dirtier, it s a lot costlyer. if americans are going to be relying on tar sands to fill up its tanks, then americans are going to be consuming less oil. christine, i m going to get in trouble for this because i get in trouble every time i say it. if you think you re saving the world by boycotting a bp gas station, you may just be hurting your local business owner. the reality is if you want to change the world and you don t want to have the world subject to the dangers of the ecological damage of either drilling for or scraping oil or skweedsi iskree
that power? former presidents feel the buck stops here. good or bad, they explain the decision. if they feel they ve made a mistake, maybe they ll change it. in this case, we have a president who is incapable of taking responsibility for what he s done. do you have a sense if we are any closer to a resolution to this problem? another day that goes by is another day that these kids get separated from their parents. i am very concerned that we are going to end up in the quicksand of the legislative process and be stuck. maybe tar sand is a better way to put it. that is why we want to keep the president in the middle of this. he caused it with the stroke of his pen and he can end it with the stroke of his pen. and things are not getting better. when we heard the homeland